Design, printing optimization, and material testing of a 3D-printed nasal osteotomy task trainer

Abstract

Abstract Background For difficult or rare procedures, simulation offers an opportunity to provide education and training. In developing an adequate model to utilize in simulation, 3D printing has emerged as a useful technology to provide detailed, accessible, and high-fidelity models. Nasal osteotomy is an essential step in many rhinoplasty surgeries, yet it can be challenging to perform and difficult to receive adequate exposure to this nuanced portion of the procedure. As it currently stands, there are limited opportunities to practice nasal osteotomy due to the reliance on cadaveric bones, which are expensive, difficult to obtain, and require appropriate facilities and personnel. While previous designs have been developed, these models leave room for improvement in printing efficiency, cost, and material performance. This manuscript aims to describe the methodology for the design of an updated nasal osteotomy training model derived from anatomic data and optimized for printability, usability, and fidelity. Additionally, an analysis of multiple commercially available 3D printing materials and technologies was conducted to determine which offered superior equivalency to bone. Methods This model was updated from a first-generation model previously described to include a more usable base and form, reduce irrelevant structures, and optimize geometry for 3D printing, while maintaining the nasal bones with added stabilizers essential for function and fidelity. For the material comparison, this updated model was printed in five materials: Ultimaker Polylactic Acid, 3D Printlife ALGA, 3DXTECH SimuBone, FibreTuff, and FormLabs Durable V2. Facial plastic surgeons tested the models in a blinded, randomized fashion and completed surveys assessing tactile feedback, audio feedback, material limitation, and overall value. Results A model optimizing printability while maintaining quality in the area of interest was developed. In the material comparison, SimuBone emerged as the top choice amongst the evaluating physicians in an experience-based subjective comparison to human bone during a simulated osteotomy procedure using the updated model. Conclusion The updated midface model that was user-centered, low-cost, and printable was designed. In material testing, Simubone was rated above other materials to have a more realistic feel.

Keywords

• 3D printing
• Bone material
• Simulation
• Medical education
• Surgery
• Material comparison